Merryman v. Parker

192 S.W.2d 812, 301 Ky. 612, 1946 Ky. LEXIS 537
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedFebruary 19, 1946
StatusPublished

This text of 192 S.W.2d 812 (Merryman v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Merryman v. Parker, 192 S.W.2d 812, 301 Ky. 612, 1946 Ky. LEXIS 537 (Ky. 1946).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Van Sant, Commissioner

—-Reversing.

Appellee filed this claim and delivery action seeking to be declared the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of a certain automobile allegedly wrongfully withheld from her by appellant. By answer and counterclaim, appellant entered a general denial, and affirmatively alleged that, as executrix of her husband’s estate, she was the owner of the automobile, by reason of a bill of sale executed to appellant’s decedent by appellee and duly recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Payette County Court. She filed the bill of sale with, and made it a part of, her answer and counter claim. The affirmative allegations of the answer were traversed in the reply, which was not verified.

Since the genuineness of the written instrument upon which appellant relies in proof of .her ownership *613 of the automobile was not denied by affidavit before the trial was begun, appellant was entitled to have it read as genuine against appellee. Sec. 527, Civil Code of Practice; McGlone v. Smith, 293 Ky. 131, 168 S. W. 2d 566. The only evidence introduced to invalidate the bill of sale was the testimony of appellee, wherein she stated that it was not the intention of the parties to the writing that it should pass title to the automobile; but that the true intention was to avoid possible future liability against appellee, in the event the automobile should become involved in an accident. This was testimony of an interested party concerning a transaction with a person who was dead, in contravention of Section 606, Subsection 2, of the Civil Code of Practice. The Court should have sustained the objection to the introduction of this testimony, and sustained appellant’s motion for a peremptory instruction.

The judgment is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McGlone v. Smith
168 S.W.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 S.W.2d 812, 301 Ky. 612, 1946 Ky. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merryman-v-parker-kyctapphigh-1946.